Feeling guilty about being disinterested in or disliking Rowling's female characters

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The title is self-explanatory. After rereading HP, I realized how let down I was about the dearth of interesting and/or likable female characters. As someone who has a long list of favorite female characters from various books, movies, TV shows, and video games, the women in the Harry Potter books leave me cold or bored.

Now, granted, the male characters aren’t spectacular either. Harry is passive, Ron is average, Draco is a waste, Snape is a mess, Dumbledore is also a mess, Voldemort is a standard villain, and plenty of other male characters are either boring or obnoxious.

And yet, as disappointing as some of the guys are, I can still find something about them interesting or engaging. I can see their potential or humanity, no matter how static, simplistic, or irritating their characterization is (well, maybe with the exception of James; I can’t stand him no matter how hard I try - and I’ve tried.)

Maybe I’m being sexist and judging the women too harshly. Maybe I’m not giving Rowling enough acclaim for trying to write a variety of female characters in a story revolving around a young boy. Maybe I’m excusing the poor characterization and lack of depth in the male characters when they’re far from complex either.

Whatever the reason is - it is what it is. Even as a young girl who enjoyed the books, I only gravitated towards Hermione and Luna. McGonagall was the sole female authority figure I found respectable. The rest?

Umbridge and Bellatrix are stereotypical images of evil. Narcissa is all about her son. Lavender and her friends are silly girly girls. Pansy is a mean girl. Millicent is an ugly mean girl. Fleur is French and beautiful. Katie and the other Quidditch gals are just there. Tonks is bubbly until she falls for Lupin. Cho is the first love interest. Molly is Harry’s overbearing surrogate mother. Petunia is Lily’s awful sister. Rita is the “pushy” career woman. Trelawney is an oddball. Sprout might as well be nonexistent. Merope is the birther of Evil Incarnate.

And then there’s the two female characters that I dislike the most: Ginny and Lily. They’re depicted as wonderful young women we’re meant to admire and adore. And yet, I’d take rude Pansy and crazy Bellatrix over them any day. Even Harry, who is portrayed as “amazing” at times, is given some flaws and criticisms within the narrative. Not everyone adores Harry and he’s called out by other characters (including his friends) for his behavior. But Ginny and Lily are overwhelmingly worshiped to the point where I can feel Rowling hitting me over the head on how I must approve of their superiority awesome personalities.

Writing this post is not doing any favors for the feminist in me. Strange thing is, from what I’ve read, JKR considers herself a feminist. But her female characters are not compelling or well written enough. Her male characters fall flat as well, but at least with the boys and men, it seems like she tried to give them depth. With the exception of Hermione, I get the sense that JKR didn’t bother to go any deeper with the girls and women. (And it’s telling how Hermione is an Author Avatar and the female character JKR put the most effort into.)

Well, this bitter rambling post has gone long enough, so I’ll end it here. Am I being too harsh and unfair or is there something off about the way JKR writes women? Or is it no different than the way she writes men? I know this topic is far from new, but I'm forevermore late to the party.

Comments

[chantaldormand]

I'll say this: never let anybody guilt trip you for not liking a character who happens to be woman/black/gay/etc. A character has to be able to stand on it's own, no matter if we are speaking about a Cosmic Pink Teapot or representative of minority. If character ends up being flat or Marry Sue or plainly uninteresting then it's fault of author and/or editor.

As for what is wrong with female characters in HPverse? Well the problem is two-folded.

We are exploring HPverse through Harry's eyes, but because JKR cannot comprehend being attracted to women, Harry ends up looking completely uninterested in them. Most girls end up being described by a trope Jo assigned them and Harry interacts with them only when plot calls for it. Men on the other hand get elaborate descriptions of their clothing or expressions.
It's no wonder that this fandom ended up being full of m/m ffs :P

The other level of the problem isn't exclusive to JKR, but rather common in story telling.
Age old problem of Marry Sue vs. Garry Stu.
A few months back I discussed this over drinks with one of my writer friends. We ended up creating this elaborated table comparing Marry Sues to Garry Stus. Our conclusion was something like this: Garry Stu is special because ofwhat they do, Marry Sue is special because of what they are. That is why it's easier to like/respect/admire a character like James Bond than let's say Bella Swan.
That being said Marry Sue is not always female and Gary Stu is not always male ;P

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

A character has to be able to stand on it's own, no matter if we are speaking about a Cosmic Pink Teapot or representative of minority.

I agree. Representation is important, but it's better when it's supported by well written characters.

We are exploring HPverse through Harry's eyes, but because JKR cannot comprehend being attracted to women, Harry ends up looking completely uninterested in them.

JKR being a heterosexual woman would influence the way she writes Harry and his perception of girls. This is probably the main reason why the romances involving Harry are so lackluster. Cho is pretty and athletic, and that's pretty much it. Ginny is pretty and athletic and ignites the chest monster within, so obviously she's Harry's soulmate (but only after she gets an upgrade; when she was a bashful background damsel, Harry hardly spared her a single thought beyond her being taken in COS).

Also, I think the prevalence of m/m slash goes back to the male characters having more potential again. The influential interactions in the series involves male characters. The major players on stage are male. Harry, the Marauders, Snape, Voldemort, Dumbledore, and even Draco... all of them have more presence in the overall story than the women. Maybe this is why Hermione is commonly shipped with many characters as well; she's the exceptional female player who's on somewhat of an equal playing field with the males.

And yes, there's a stronger focus on the appearance of male characters. Their faces, body language, eyes, and clothing are given more attention. On the other hand, The female characters seem to have one or two defining features, such as Hermione's bushy brown hair or Ginny's flaming red hair or Lily's ultra extraordinary green eyes, etc.

Our conclusion was something like this: Garry Stu is special because of what they do, Marry Sue is special because of what they are. That is why it's easier to like/respect/admire a character like James Bond than let's say Bella Swan.

That's a great way of summarizing it. It goes back to the way men and women are judged in reality as well. Men pursue, women are pursued. Men act, women are acted upon, etc. It's not something I agree with obviously, but the mentality can influence how male and female characters are treated in stories.

I tend to hesitate using the term "Mary Sue" because I know it can be thrown around without consideration. Sometimes a woman simply being competent and skilled in a story is enough for people to brand her as a Mary Sue. But that's not the requirement for a character being a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue, as you've said, is someone who is special on the merit of their existence alone. They're perfect with little to no flaws and are beloved by nearly everyone, even the bad guys. They are rarely called out for making any mistakes (if they make any in the first place).

Ginny and Lily seem like Mary Sues to me, especially Lily. She's extra beautiful, extra smart, extra popular, extra kind, and her presence alone is enough to make James into a better person. Plus, she's the center of the universe for one of the most spiteful and morally ambiguous characters in the series. Snape hates everyone - except for Lily. She's special enough to be worshiped by him for the rest of his life. And she's never criticized by Harry. James is (briefly) knocked down from his pedestal when Harry sees what a bully he was, but Lily remains an idealized figure in Harry's life. Petunia says some mean words about her, but no one likes or cares about Petunia. It's another way for Lily to look good in comparison. No one is ever portrayed as being better than her.

The more a character's perfect existence is shoved down my throat, the less I care about them. That's why I'd take irrevocably evil Bellatrix over lovely Lily; at least Bellatrix is fun in her messed up way.

I know the story is meant to be all about Harry, so it makes sense that other characters are going to come second, especially if they're not related to him. But it's frustrating nonetheless to have such an abysmal quality and quantity of women in Harry's world.

[t0ra-chan.livejournal.com]

You're not being unfair about the way JKR writes her female characters, she clearly doesn't practice what she preaches. She once said that the wizarding world is supposed to be equal, but when you actually look at what she wrote, it's clearly not the case. Female characters, especially feminine ones, are always treated as lesser, unless they're no-nonsense like Hermione and McGonagall or tomboys like Ginny.

When she took her break between GoF and OotP, I think the critisism of her books regarding her female character really got to her. People complained that apart from Hermione and McGonagall none of the female characters actually matter. All the important roles are filled by men: all the DA teachers, the rival, the mean teacher, the mentor, all the ministry employees including the aurors (the only female one is Bertha Jorkins and she exists and dies completely off-screen). Even with Harry's parents it's all about his dad: Harry looks like him (except the eyes), he played Quidditch like Harry, Snape's beef is with James, the Marauders were James' friends and so on. Lily was just there for her eye color and dying so Harry has a magical protection and a muggle family that could raise him.

And then OotP comes around and all of a sudden we get a whole slew of female characters, either new ones or the old ones get an upgrade. Umbridge is both a ministry employee and a DA teacher, Amelia Bones is another ministry worker, Tonks and Emily Vance are female aurors and Neville's mom Alice also gets upgraded to auror. In GoF she was just Frank Longbottom's wife and didn't even have a first name. As for the students, we get Lun, Cho gets a lot more screen time, Angelina becomes Quidditch captain and Ginny got a personality transplant. But it's clear that JKR never truly cared, because by the time HBP came out so much of this got undone. Emily Vance and Amelia Bones die inbetween books, Tonks becomes a sad sack because of love, Ginny just exists as a love interest Mary Sue, Luna's role is greatly reduced, Cho is mentioned only once, Angelina has graduated so Harry becomes captain, Snape becomes the new DA teacher, the new teacher is also another man and even Hermione is all caught up in relationship bullshit. Not a single female character does anything of importance in this book.

JKR should just admit that she has no real interest in female characters unless they are exactly like herself and that she has a lot of issues with girly girls and femininity.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Female characters, especially feminine ones, are always treated as lesser, unless they're no-nonsense like Hermione and McGonagall or tomboys like Ginny/

And it's not truly equal, because their violence isn't taken seriously. Yes, it could also be because they're Gryffindors, but they're allowed to get away with stuff that the boys aren't. Hermione slaps Draco in PoA. Does Draco slap her in return? No. Ginny flies her broomstick into Zacharias Smith because of his commentary. Does anybody fly into Luna for hers? No. And, of course, the infamous canary scene in HBP. Does Ron ever hex or beat up Hermione for dating Viktor or for going with Cormac to the Slug Club dinner? No.

Because if Draco or Ron did do any of that, then that would be seen as something serious. It would be a big deal. But since it's only girls who are doing those things, eh, whatever. It's not like they live in a world that's run by magic, where men and women are equally capable of performing magic. You may be the brightest witch in your year, Hermione, but your anger is still just sitcom fodder.

/And then OotP comes around and all of a sudden we get a whole slew of female characters, either new ones or the old ones get an upgrade/

Bellatrix might also be an example of this as well. She's the unofficial leader of the Death Eaters after GoF, she gets a lot more personality and page time than her husband (who's really just a nonentity), and we learn that she's Sirius's cousin.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

But since it's only girls who are doing those things, eh, whatever. It's not like they live in a world that's run by magic, where men and women are equally capable of performing magic.

I think this is another case of JKR not knowing what kind of tone she's setting for her story. On one hand, she wants to add fantastical or humorous elements where abuse, bullying, and violence can be viewed in a frivolous/funny/trivial matter. On the other hand, she also wants to introduce mature and heavy themes to make her books darker and more serious - therefore abuse, bullying, and violence shouldn't be viewed in a frivolous/funny/trivial matter.

The result is a mess of different tones. Physical violence between students can be funny and slapstick (Hermione sending the birds on Ron) or it can be threatening (Draco stomping on Harry's nose in HBP). I think it's a combination of JKR not knowing what approach she wants for her world, Gryffindors getting away with their bad behavior, and violence from girls being seen as "feisty" or "funny" because girls aren't seen as a threat.

Same thing goes for bullying. Bullies like Snape and Draco are treated like the embodiment of everything horrible and irredeemable, but bullies like the Marauders are just having a laugh. It's no big deal - James grew out of it and no one got hurt, so who cares? Boys will be boys!

I'm probably not explaining this very well.... But the tone in the books going back and forth between "take this issue seriously" and "don't take this issue seriously" gives me whiplash.

Anyways, I do think irrational behavior from the female characters is played up for laughs or to show how "cool" they are for not taking any crap from a boy. I agree that there's no way Draco slapping Hermione or a male Quidditch player crashing into Luna on purpose would be seen as feisty or entertaining.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I agree so much with this! It always struck me that Hermione was abusive to Ron--both with the bird attack and with her hitting him when he came back to the tent in DH. Had he been shown doing likewise to her, no reader could have seen it as anything but abuse. But, somehow, Hermione gets a pass. Why?

It's pretty frustrating.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Female characters, especially feminine ones, are always treated as lesser, unless they're no-nonsense like Hermione and McGonagall or tomboys like Ginny.

I agree, although I think it's not only feminine women that are disparaged, but women who are considered too "masculine" or unattractive. Umbridge, Rita, and Millicent come to mind as women who have unfeminine features and are seen as unattractive for it. The "correct" type of femininity is reserved for girls who aren't too girly but aren't ugly or too masculine either.

Speaking of appearance, this is a side-topic and me being oversensitive, but I found it bothersome how cruel JKR could be in describing characters meant to be unappealing. It makes me wonder how much of it is truly Harry's perception of the people around him and how much is it JKR's own superficial vision of appearance. Again, I'm most likely being oversensitive, but I find it an interesting thought nonetheless. Especially when it pertains to the Slytherins who are either ugly (e.g. Snape, Pansy Crabbe, Goyle, Umbridge, most of the Death Eaters) or beautiful in a vain and cold way (e.g. the Malfoys, Blaise, young Tom Riddle). And the one token bad Gryffindor, Peter, is the most physically unappealing member of the Marauders.

Sorry for going off on a tangent there. Back to the main topic:

All the important roles are filled by men: all the DA teachers, the rival, the mean teacher, the mentor, all the ministry employees including the aurors (the only female one is Bertha Jorkins and she exists and dies completely off-screen). Even with Harry's parents it's all about his dad: Harry looks like him (except the eyes), he played Quidditch like Harry, Snape's beef is with James, the Marauders were James' friends and so on. Lily was just there for her eye color and dying so Harry has a magical protection and a muggle family that could raise him.

Well said! It's completely true that the majority, if not all, of the main and significant roles in the story are filled by men. They're the major players who affect the plot and vice versa. You can take out plenty of the female characters and the story will remain largely unaffected. Even though some female characters get an upgrade in OOTP, it doesn't matter too much in the long-run. Once HBP comes around, the important characters in the story are, once again, male - Dumbledore, Snape, Draco, Slughorn, and Harry.

And Lily is such a weird case for me. She's praised throughout the books and depicted as being so sublime and perfect in comparison to the imperfect men in her life... and yet, she's more of a symbol than a character of her own. Her existence relates back to Harry, James, and Snape. She has nothing interesting of her own to offer. JKR keeps trying to tell the reader how amazing and special she is without showing it.

This connects back to Ginny in a way because I got the vibe that JKR wanted her to be Lily Version 2.0. She wanted Ginny to be "worthy" of Harry. In the end, Ginny is nothing more than a love interest given to the hero as a reward to make babies with, just as Lily had no existence beyond the men in her life as well.

JKR should just admit that she has no real interest in female characters unless they are exactly like herself and that she has a lot of issues with girly girls and femininity.

Yep. She at least tried with her male characters to give them complexity, but other than Hermione, none of the female characters mattered too much to the overall story.

Thank you for your insightful comment!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Your last question is interesting, and I"m not sure I have an answer. I am one of the people who noted that Rowling is a good observer of peoples' actions and looks, but very bad at interpreting them. This is especially true, for me, in the depiction of Severus, but it's pretty universal with her characters. The female character who bothers me the most? Molly Weasely. A younger colleague called her a harridan when we were discussing the books. She's just awful to Ron. Yet, because she's kind to Harry and always giving him food, we're supposed to see her as a generous, earth-mother type. She's not.

But is Mr. Weasely any better, as a character, than his wife? I always liked him, but he, too, is deeply flawed and also somewhat stereotyped.

I do think it's true that it's easier to visualize Rowling's male characters than her female ones. They are mostly so vague that, when Rowling says things about them, it seems to come completely out of left field. Example: She was discussing Pansy Parkinson as the type of girl who would fat-shame others. Excuse me? Pansy,in the books, didn't seem body-conscious at all. She scarcely seemed to have a body. The only description I ever remember of her is "hard-faced".

Yet, it's Pansy who broke my heart in DH. Not by giving up Harry Potter's whereabouts, but by her cry, "Where's Professor Snape?" That child knew who was protecting her. But I bet you anything Rowling wouldn't' interpret it that way.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I am one of the people who noted that Rowling is a good observer of peoples' actions and looks, but very bad at interpreting them.

I think she has a tendency to treat some of her characters as plot devices or superficial identities rather than real believable people. Going deeper beneath the surface requires extra time and work that I think JKR isn't interested in if it doesn't serve the plot. She's not a character-driven writer.

As for Molly, I think JKR wanted someone to fulfill the mother role for Harry that he didn't get from Lily because she was killed. That's why Molly comes across as more attentive, caring, and generous to Harry rather than to her own children.

This reminds me of another point I forgot to mention: how we receive so little information about Hermione's parents! Hermione is Harry's best friend too, but he never shows any interest in meeting them? Harry and Hermione both grew up in the muggle world - that's something they have in common separate from Ron. And yet, it's Ron's family that's given more attention and significance. They're Harry's ticket to ultimate happiness and the Wizarding World, so I suppose Hermione's family doesn't matter.

As for Arthur v. Molly - I think it's fair to say that many male characters lack depth as well. Nonetheless, when looking at the overall story, it's the men who get more page time in the long-run. As t0ra_chan mentioned above, the important roles in the story are fulfilled all by men. I agree with her. Hermione is the exception and even she is sometimes pushed to the side when compared to Ron. Ron was the thing Harry would miss most in GOF. He's Harry's first friend. His family is more important than Hermione's. And Harry mentions how boring it is without him when it's just him and Hermione.

Example: She was discussing Pansy Parkinson as the type of girl who would fat-shame others. Excuse me? Pansy,in the books, didn't seem body-conscious at all. She scarcely seemed to have a body. The only description I ever remember of her is "hard-faced".

JKR is not one to act morally superior when it comes to fat-shaming. Her overweight characters are consistently portrayed in a negative light. Vernon, Dudley, Umbridge, Millicent, and Peter are overweight characters who are far from noble and nice. Sure, there's Neville and Molly who are plump too, but Neville becomes better looking once he makes himself into a worthy brave Gryffindor. And Molly is the the "good" type of plump person because she's extra giving, nurturing, and motherly.

There's plenty of villainous thin characters too, namely Snape, Voldemort, and the Malfoys, but their thinness isn't insulted on the same level as the overweight villainous characters.

Or maybe I'm reaching too much. I guess what I'm trying to say is Rowling can be just as attentive to appearance as she claims mean schoolgirl Pansy is.

Yet, it's Pansy who broke my heart in DH. Not by giving up Harry Potter's whereabouts, but by her cry, "Where's Professor Snape?" That child knew who was protecting her. But I bet you anything Rowling wouldn't' interpret it that way.

I agree. JKR probably had Pansy say that as an indication Pansy is selfish and uncaring to what happens to the other houses. She only cares for her fellow Slytherins, especially when she points out Harry be handed over to Voldemort in exchange for their safety. She's just another mean Slytherin like her Professor/Headmaster, after all. Ugh.

Overall, I think JKR has trouble with writing both male and female characters, but it's her female characters that are more so overshadowed. At least the men get a chance to be important and have a sliver of depth. I don't think I can say the same for the women (other than Hermione, of course. And Hermione is JKR's exaggerated version of her younger self; that's probably why JKR put more work in Hermione's character in the first place - she was writing a version of herself).

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/As for Molly, I think JKR wanted someone to fulfill the mother role for Harry that he didn't get from Lily because she was killed/

Or from Petunia, because she resented him. However, that's another point in JKR's favor, Petunia is more fleshed out than Vernon is. In DH, we get to see a younger Petunia and her backstory. All we really learn about Vernon is that he has a mean sister whom Harry blows up in PoA.

/we receive so little information about Hermione's parents! Hermione is Harry's best friend too, but he never shows any interest in meeting them? Harry and Hermione both grew up in the muggle world - that's something they have in common separate from Ron. And yet, it's Ron's family that's given more attention and significance/

I think that JKR didn't say anything about the Grangers because they're Muggles and thus 'wouldn't be as interesting' as the Weasleys. I disagree, because I think that Muggle parents trying to cope with their magical child (in a supportive and non-abusive way) could be interesting.

But if she didn't want to talk about them, I'm still confused over why she didn't at least give them first names and the bare minimum of physical description. We know that Harry looks like his father and has his mother's green eyes and that Draco resembles his father and that Ron has his parents' red hair. But what about Hermione? Does she resemble either of her parents? Does one parent have bushy hair and the other have large front teeth? We don't know, because they're never described. The only information that we have about them are their occupations. And these are the parents of one of the main characters.

And yes, Hermione and Harry's shared background of growing up in the Muggle world definitely could've been a bonding moment for them. They're both thrust into a world that they're clueless about and they could rely on each other for support while trying to fit in. But nothing comes of it. Hermione's read all the books about Hogwarts before arriving at the castle, she inexplicably becomes the tour guide for the wizarding world instead of Ron, and the most backlash that she gets at school is from Draco. Harry is surprised at the strange things that he encounters, but soon grows to accept them. He doesn't believe in SPEW any more than Ron does, nobody at school gives him grief for being a half-blood, and he doesn't do anything to try to change the customs of the wizarding world. He gets angry at some of the things he learns, he does think that prejudice against Muggle-borns is wrong, and he does step out of bounds a bit by burying Dobby. But the Muggle world just slips away from him and Hermione. He doesn't miss anything about it and neither, apparently, does she. Which I guess is why Harry never shows any interest in Hermione's parents: they're boring Muggles, so why should he ask if he can visit Hermione's house? Why should he spend time with her family and get to know them the same way that he knows the Weasleys?

/Her overweight characters are consistently portrayed in a negative light. Vernon, Dudley, Umbridge, Millicent, and Peter are overweight characters who are far from noble and nice/

There are also Horace Slughorn and his female counterpart, Hepzibah Smith. Who, while not villainous, are also not portrayed as heroic or benevolent people either.

Actually, this kind of ties in with an earlier comment that you made up above. Commenters here have mocked Harry's inner sniping about Hepzibah Smith's looks in HBP, saying that it looks like he's jealous that she's mooning over Tom. But since JKR obviously didn't mean for Harry to have a crush on Tom, then it's kind of odd that he's harping on about her looks. I mean, yes, he can think that she's ugly because she's fat, but the level of detail that goes into describing Hepzibah's weight and Dudley's weight, etc. sounds more like what the narrative voice is judging than what someone like Harry would focus on. It's very similar to Roald Dahl's tone, but he takes more of an omniscient narrator POV in his children's books instead of a limited third-person POV.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Petunia is treated with more relevance than Vernon, and I've noticed the fandom is also slightly kinder to Petunia opposed to Vernon. Having Harry's mother as a sister privileges Petunia's character to a certain extent.

I completely agree with the disappointment over not getting more about Hermione's parents and the missed opportunities for Harry and Hermione to bond in a unique way. I also think that JKR didn't want to waste time on "boring" normal Muggles. For all the vicious prejudice against Muggles and Muggleborns in the Wizarding World, it seems like JKR doesn't have much interest in humanizing non-magical people or showing the harsh reality of discrimination/racism affecting Hermione and Harry.

And as a side-note: it kind of bothers me how the few confirmed Slytherin half-blood characters are characterized as evil or morally ambiguous. Snape, Voldemort, and Umbridge are half-bloods and yet their half-blood status is not called in question with their involvement (or association) in a pure-blood supremacist group? I know JKR was going for the message that even those who are discriminated against seek superiority and power over others, no matter how hypocritical. Nonetheless, it's another example to me how JKR wanted to write about serious themes (racism, fascism, etc) but didn't cultivate it well enough in the overall world she created.

As for the commentary on appearance: I think it's a case of JKR's own opinions on looks seeping through Harry's POV. At least, that's the vibe I get at times. As chantaldormand mentioned above, male characters receive more elaborate descriptions about their attire and presentation. Rereading the series, I did get the sense that men have their body language, faces, and eyes given more attention and detail, regardless whether it's complimentary, unflattering, or neutral.

I also think this goes back to JKR being more approving of the "right" kind of femininity for women, since the female characters that are often described favorably are neither too girly or too masculine in appearance and behavior. That's what makes Ginny so appealing in Harry's eyes: she's feminine enough to be extremely pretty and supportive, but not too girly because she's sporty, tough, and fierce. Harry's "chest monster" for Ginny sounded more like what JKR thought a straight teenage boy would think rather than what an actual straight teenage boy would think, if that makes sense.

Re: Umbridge

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I don't care what JKR says in interviews and websites: Umbridge is obviously an example of the dark side of Hufflepuff. It shows a decided lack of imagination for every evil character to be a Slytherin whose principal evil characteristic is blood prejudice. *snarl*grumble*rant*

Re: Umbridge

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I'm with you there. I can see Umbridge being the dark representative of Hufflepuff. A person can be hard-working, diligent, dedicated, patient, and loyal - and still commit terrible and atrocious acts. A Hufflepuff can have their own vision of what's "fair" and be faithful to all the wrong sorts of values. It would've been a great way to represent how each house in Hogwarts has a sinister side, and how cruel people come from every background.

But nope. Umbridge is evil, racist, and irredeemable - so let's make her a Slytherin! Obviously.

And better yet, let's have another example of an unscrupulous Slytherin half-blood, because... why not? It's not only Slytherin pure-bloods who are prejudiced and racist, even those Slytherin half-bloods are infected with poisonous ideals!

I'm shocked JKR didn't take it a step further and had racist Slytherin muggleborns just to twist the "All Slytherins are Horrible" knife further in.

Re: Umbridge

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Not only that, Umbridge in Book Five gives no indication that she is a blood bigot in the sense that she looks down on muggleborns, or even muggles. She does not object to non-wizard blood; she objects to non-human blood. As far as we know, her position on the Muggleborn Registration Committee in Book Seven is just a bureaucratic post. It’s her job to suppress muggleborns, and as a loyal bureaucrat she is conscientiously doing her job. When she’s on her own, it’s non-human sapients—giants and centaurs—that she finds objectionable.

It’s sad how Rowling has gone out of her way to simplify her universe. All Slytherins are evil and all evil people are Slytherins. All prejudice is anti-muggleborn bigotry, and all bigotry is anti-muggleborn. And this is happening in a culture that views actual muggles as amusing or dangerous animals, and is right to do so.

Thank God for meta and fan fiction. Most of it is trash (Sturgeon’s Law!), but occasionally one finds a fan analyst or author who can really open up this cosmos and make it into something that is still fascinating decades later.

Re: Umbridge

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Umbridge's utmost loyalty and dedication to what she deems to be right and fair would've made her a formidable and frightening Hufflepuff. I don't recall if she outright voiced racism against muggleborns, but she did enjoy her position of power in the Ministry. Her racism was more pronounced towards non-human beings. And she wasn't a Death Eater, although she supported Voldemort's regime.

On the other hand, JKR did write on Pottermore an article about Umbridge and claimed Umbridge despised her mother for her Muggle background and her Squib brother. So there's that, although I'm not sure if Pottermore counts as canon or not, even if JKR writes some of the articles herself.

I agree on how sad it is to paint nearly all Slytherins with the same shadowy brush. Before the last book came out, I thought JKR would do a role reversal with the Gryffindors and Slytherins and show how both houses have their faults - and how both need to reconcile and cooperate with one another to take Voldemort down. I thought at least one Slytherin character would be redeemed and Harry would have to work with a Slytherin adversary (Snape or Draco) to win the war. But... it didn't happen. Harry remained the same, the Gryffindors remained morally righteous, and the Slytherins remained morally dubious at best and evil at worst. The "reveal" of Dumbledore being morally ambiguous wasn't a big deal because he remained a favorable mentor figure who did everything for Good's sake.

And yes, Rowling herself has no interest in writing or portraying muggles in the HP universe. She regards them as boring as well. As mentioned above, we learn barely anything about Hermione's parents, and Harry and Hermione don't get to bond over their shared muggle background.

Sorry for the rant, but the disappointment still stings to this day. I'm thankful for fan fiction, meta, and discussions as well. It's why I got back into the HP fandom in the first place.

[sunnyskywalker]

Her female characters usually lack character arcs or subplots of their own. And they usually have a lot less backstory or interesting details that you can use as a springboard for imagination. It's harder to imagine what they're like when Harry isn't in the room.

I think more often, the male characters get to exist for themselves, and the female characters react to them. It's very unbalanced.

Teachers: McGonagall... is often harsh, occasionally encouraging, and that's about it despite her page time. Umbridge is a tyrant, and then she gets kicked out, and then she shows up later but doesn't really do much. Poor Trelawney is literally a plot device--the only things she does that affect anything are things she can't remember! Other than that, she stays the same for 16 years as far as we see. Charity Burbage is a redshirt whose name we never even heard until she showed up to die. I think Sprout's big moment is growing mandrakes, and maybe giving Harry points that one time.

Compare to the massive plot relevance and emotional journeys and page time and overall detail we get for Dumbledore, Snape, Lupin, Hagrid...

For Ministry employees, compare Crouch Sr. and Amelia Bones. One of them has a rise and fall and mystery, and one shows up for a scene and then dies.

Villains (I'll leave out Voldemort): Bellatrix is fanatical and evil and then dies. Narcissa is rude but also a mom who loves her son; I guess at least she gets to do two things that affect the plot in the two books where she's anything more than a cameo, so that's something. Lucius inadvertently kick-starts CoS because Dobby hates him enough to work against him with Harry's help. Then he gains political influence, rises in Voldemort's favor, goes to prison, becomes a prisoner in his own house, and finally decides being a dad is more important than taking over the world. Barty Jr. is crucial to the plot of an entire book and interacts with Harry regularly, and you can see him go from scared teenager (who was a DE, but a scared one who nearly died) to Most Devoted Servant. Peter was a friend who betrayed Harry's dad, then hid, then resurrected Voldemort, then hesitated to kill Harry because even if he didn't get a proper resolution, he at least had inner conflict. Lockhart was pretty one-note, but then he shows up for a cameo later that adds pathos to his story.

Even in the Trio, Harry gets his whole attempt at a hero's journey, Ron fights to overcome jealousy and his feelings of inadequacy, and Hermione... well, she gets more ruthless, I guess? Er, gets a boyfriend? But she pretty much fills the same role, so you have to really work to knock her story into any kind of journey. It takes filling in a lot of gaps. That one is particularly galling, because Hermione could have had a better developed character arc with probably very little more work.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Her female characters usually lack character arcs or subplots of their own. And they usually have a lot less backstory or interesting details that you can use as a springboard for imagination. It's harder to imagine what they're like when Harry isn't in the room.

I think more often, the male characters get to exist for themselves, and the female characters react to them. It's very unbalanced.

Yes, I agree with you. The men have a stronger presence in the story and seem to have interesting lives separate from Harry. Even if they aren't written to their full potential, they do provide something beyond merely existing in Harry's world. They also have more of an emotional impact on Harry in general, whether positive or negative. Harry has numerous male mentor figures, father figures, teachers, friends, acquaintances, and enemies, in contrast with the few important female figures in his life.

I agree with the rest of your post and the comparisons to be made between male and female characters, such as Narcissa and Lucius. Even though Narcissa gets to accomplish a few things of her own, she's still strongly connected back to her son and defined by her role as a mother in a way that Lucius isn't defined by his role as a father. I understand JKR has a lot of respect for motherhood, but sometimes through her female characters, it comes across as if being a mother is the greatest achievement for a woman, more so than being a father is for a man.

Even in the Trio, Harry gets his whole attempt at a hero's journey, Ron fights to overcome jealousy and his feelings of inadequacy, and Hermione... well, she gets more ruthless, I guess? Er, gets a boyfriend? But she pretty much fills the same role, so you have to really work to knock her story into any kind of journey.

I think Hermione is considered one of JKR's best characters and is often placed on the top of "Most Popular HP Characters" lists. Despite her popularity in comparison to Harry and Ron, she does get pushed to the side sometimes in the books. Harry considers her like a sister, but it's his friendship with Ron that takes precedence in the trio.

And, as you've said, Ron and Harry at least attempt to have their own emotional hardships. With Hermione, the closest we get is when she has to Obliviate her parents. But we don't know her family or care for them, so her choice to follow Harry over her parents lacks impact for me. Hermione can be driven and ruthless, but it sometimes seems like her ambition is more important when it can help Harry and serve Harry's life instead of her own.

[sunnyskywalker]

Hermione's case is especially frustrating because there's so much that could have made for a coherent arc. Trying to find her place in the magical world as a Muggle-born, for instance. There's a lot of material, and hints at her struggle (the whole SPEW thing definitely showed a different cultural mindset, e.g., and you could probably do a lot with how she sometimes works through Harry, as with starting the DA, rather than in her own right). But what was her arc? How did this develop over time? Ron's and Harry's were pretty clearly defined. Hermione was very hard done by, I think. Maybe she got stuck delivering so much exposition that she didn't have time to have a fully-developed character arc. It's so unbalanced.